Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to child protection referrals. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in its response to child protection referrals made about him. He states that the Council’s response led to him losing contact with his son and has caused him significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s son lives with his mother. The evidence shows that the Council received two referrals following an incident which took place at his son’s school, where his son’s mother works. Mr X’s complaint relates to the Council’s response to these referrals, which he says led to him losing contact with his son.
7. Mr X says the Council’s actions were flawed, in that its officers failed to contact him to ascertain and take account of his views. He says officers acted with bias towards his son’s mother, proposing a safety plan which effectively prevented him from seeing his son, and their position was material to the negative outcome of private law proceedings. He further complains that false and misleading information was placed on the Council’s files.
8. Mr X made a complaint to the Council which was addressed under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. It completed the first two stages of the three-stage procedure. The Investigating Officer upheld the complaint in part and made a number of recommendations. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of Stage 2. There is no indication that Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to the final stage of the statutory procedure.
9. Mr X has used his right to rectification to address his complaint about the disagreement with the information on the Council’s files. The evidence shows that this matter has been concluded.
10. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been considered in court, or are closely related to such matters. We could take no view on whether the Council’s actions were material to the outcome of private legal proceedings regarding contact.
11. The statutory procedure provides a robust and effective mechanism through which complainants can have their concerns about children’s services considered. Where a complaint has been considered under the statutory procedure, the question for the Ombudsman is whether the outcome is reasonable and proportionate. Where that is the case, it is unlikely we would wish to intervene. That is the case here.
12. Mr X had input into Stage 2 of the procedure, which reached conclusions which appear soundly based. If he was unhappy with the findings or recommendations, his recourse was to escalate the matter to the final stage of the procedure. He did not do so. That is a matter for him, but it does not follow that the Ombudsman should intervene to substitute ourselves for the Stage 3 Review Panel’s function and reconsider the outcome of Stage 2.
13. In the absence of evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its conclusions at Stage 2, we cannot criticise their merits or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Investigation would not therefore lead to a different outcome and is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman